O Lord, Forgive us for having left undone those things which we ought to have done
and for having done those things which we ought not to have done.

A. INTRODUCTION

The Parliament of the World's Religions was held in Chicago (29 August-4th September
1993) -- as a centennial celebration of a similar event in Chicago in 1893. This came to
be seen by many as the birth of the inter-faith movement despite its origins as an
official extension of an event organized by the City of Chicago to commemorate the Fourth
Centenary of the arrival of Columbus in the Americas. This centennial was also marked by
other inter-faith events elsewhere.

This note follows an earlier report on learnings of relevance to inter-faith gatherings
(1) which includes a description of the World Congress towards Spiritual Concord (Alma
Ata, 1992) already reproduced in this journal (2). It is designed to highlight some of the
learnings to be gained from these events with a view to any future initiatives of this
kind. As such it is less an evaluation of what was achieved and more an assessment of the
questions and challenges still to be faced.

One dilemma in formulating this note is the nature of its potential readership. It is
not designed for those whose interest is primarily in celebrating what has been achieved,
nor is it especially concerned with any particular institutional setting through which
future inter-faith events may emerge. The aim is to highlight concerns which merit
attention if such events are to respond more effectively to the challenge of the times and
the expectations projected onto them by many around the world.

There is a widespread tendency to emphasize the oneness at the heart of all religions,
the harmony of world community, and the need for consensus. This 'positive'
approach has not reversed the trend towards religious violence. A contrasting approach is
therefore explored here in accordance with the Dalai Lama's view that to talk of the
oneness at the heart of religions is 'hypocrisy'. In Chicago he stressed the
value and necessity of differences as serving the needs of people of different
temperament. From this perspective the objective is not to make religions similar, but to
learn to work creatively and effectively with those differences.

B. BACKGROUND

There is a long history of inter-faith dialogues. But 'inter- faith' has
always been interpreted in different ways, grouping a larger or smaller number of
religious traditions. Many have arisen from the initiative of a particular group and have
been limited in scope to the

bilateral relationship with some other religious tradition (eg Christians-Jews). There
is no 'map' of the overlap or isolation of different inter-faith initiatives.
Nor does this appear to be a concern.

There are a number of international inter-faith organizations, beyond those which are
primarily inter-denominational within traditions such as Christianity. The broadest
Christian inter- denominational body is the World Council of Churches, but this does not
include either Roman Catholics nor the more fundamentalist Christians grouped within the
International Council of Christian Churches. The main international inter-faith bodies are
indicated in Figure 1. The main international inter- faith events during the 1992-93
centennial period are indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: International inter-faith centennial events

People and Religions (Louvain-Brussels, 1992; Milan, September 1993). This annual event,
grouping some 1,000 people, is essentially an initiative of the Community of S. Egidio of
the Roman Catholic Church which effectively determines the programme and the pattern of
invitations.

First World Congress towards Spiritual Concord (Alma Ata, Kazakhstan, 1992) organized by
the International Association 'Peace through Culture' (Moscow) and bringing
together a total of some 3,000 people

Delhi Congress of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace (New Delhi, 1-7
February 1993), bringing together some 600 participants

Third General Assembly of the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders
(Kyoto, 17-23 April 1993)

Interfaith World Celebration of Unity and Life of the World Fellowship of
Inter-Religious Councils (Kanyakumari, India, August 1993) bringing together 360
participants.

Sarva-Dharma-Sammelana (Bangalore, 18-22 August 1993) organized by the International
Interfaith Organizations Coordinating Committee) as a gathering of 600 people from
actively engaged in inter-faith work in 28 countries.

Parliament of the World's Religions (Chicago, September 1993) organized by the Council
for the Parliament of the World's Religions. This originated as the initiative of a
Chicago group of Baha'is, Buddhists, Hindus and Zoroastrians, later joined by Christians
and others.

It is characteristic of 'inter-faith politics' that these events are not
functionally related to each other, although representatives of one may occasionally be
consulted on the organization of another. Very few participants at one event attend any of
the others, if only for financial reasons.

Few speakers at any one event will be aware of, or refer to, the other events. Whilst
all may acknowledge, to some degree, the centennial period, there will be little concern
at the degree of evolution of inter-faith dialogue through this pattern of events. There
is no sense of continuity or ongoing work -- nor any checklist of challenges and
opportunities. Their declarations do not build upon one another. In brief, there is no
inter-faith 'flame of insight' to be carried on from one to the other.

Many would argue that anyway the focus of interfaith dialogue is on celebrating
mutuality rather than clarifying new approaches. Others would argue that the connections
are organic and subtle and must necessarily evolve at their own pace -- irrespective of
the ongoing challenges of interreligious violence in places such as Bosnia, the Middle
East, India, and Northern Ireland.

C. APPEARANCES

Objectives

It continues to be a major achievement to bring together the representatives of
different faiths for an international gathering under the same roof. From this
perspective, the Chicago Parliament stands as a major symbolic success -- and a striking
celebration of one hundred years of progress.

A prime objective of such events seems to be to 'talk up' the importance of
inter-faith dialogue. Distinguished representatives of different faiths are called upon to
address this theme from different angles in plenary speeches. Many succeed in devoting
considerable time to this process. It arouses little controversy and confirms the
credibility of the initiative -- above all to the adherents of each faith. This is an
opportunity to establish benchmarks. It may well be asked, given the history of inter-
faith dialogue, exactly how much time needs to be devoted to this process.

Another prime objective that absorbs considerable attention is the reflection of the
consensus of the assembled faiths in some form of declaration. In promoting a Global
Ethic, the underlying intention in Chicago was not theological unity, however, but
working toward peace in a world where more than two thirds of armed conflicts have
religion at their core. Given the treatment accorded to such declarations by wider
society, and by the religions themselves, it may be asked whether producing such documents
merits the resources allocated to this process. The fate of the Declaration of Human
Responsibilities for Peace Sustainability (Costa Rica, 1989) merits especial attention in
this respect. And what of the relationship to declaration of the United Nations Conference
on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993) that was only 'universally agreed' under
pressure of political blackmail?

Another objective is to further the process of dialogue between the faiths. This
usually takes the form of ensuring discussion between representatives so that some minimal
bond of friendship may develop. But beyond cordiality and professional concerns, it
remains unclear to what degree real differences are effectively addressed or what it is
hoped to create through dialogue.

It needs to be stressed that the Chicago Parliament evolved through a number of visions
of greater or lesser ambition which attracted people with different agendas. Some of the
objectives were recognized as having come 'before their time', as ably noted by
Ronald Kidd (3). Financial realities finally dictated that the event be essentially
planned as a local Chicago event, especially since all the world religions (and
many others) were represented there. Indeed for some the purpose was to improve interfaith
relations in Chicago alone. But paradoxically, like its predecessor, it blossomed into an
event of world significance, for which many, including the organizers, were
essentially unprepared. This resulted in the presence of elements which were contrary to
the principles of the initiators of the process which led up to it. The following comments
need to be read in the light of this ambiguity. For some it was effectively a
'Parliament of the World's Relgions based in Chicago', but for many (including
the media) it was treated as a truly international 'World Parliament of
Religions'.

Setting

The initiatives of the Roman Catholic Church tend to be housed in suitably established
institutions, whether universities or government buildings. That in Alma Ata was held in
the national congress centre under the auspices of the President of Kazakhstan -- an
extraordinary initiative for the president of a newly- independent and impoverished
country in a state of social transition.

In Chicago the event was held partly in the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, a large and
gracious building dating from the earlier part of the century. The hotel of 23 floors had
approximately 200 rooms per floor, with a number of large meeting rooms and many smaller
ones. The core Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders was held in the former Chicago
Stock Exchange, now part of the Art Institute. Many participants were also lodged in
neighbouring hotels or with community groups.

Again it was, and remains, a symbolic achievement to hold such an event in a city
widely perceived as epitomizing the spirit of hardened materialism. Given the size of the
meeting, the facilities were well suited to the occasion. The challenge of the dietary and
culinary exigencies of the different faiths was also well met by the hotel's many
restaurants.

Participants

As in the academic world, one of the key features of international inter-faith
conferences is what might be termed 'chequebook invitations'. For few are able
to resist the temptations of long-distance travel with all expenses paid. It is therefore
difficult to assess the import of such events when it is unclear what financial commitment
the participant made -- as contrasted with the organizer, or the local host committees.
The emerging inter-faith conference circuit also exerts certain pressures, if further
travel is to be forthcoming.

Although 'open', participation in the Catholic initiatives tends to be
confined to invited non-Catholic participants and numerous Catholics, especially
seminarians and members of Catholic communities. Participant lists and breakdowns are
unobtainable.

The Alma Ata initiative was also open, with the composition of the 3,000 participants
largely determined by the communication networks of the semi-formal religious and
spiritual movements in the former Soviet Union and the Central Asian republics. Some 100
Europeans were present, but with almost no participation from North America. An unusual
mix of spiritual traditions was represented. But again no participants lists and
breakdowns were obtainable.

Chicago was a magnificent success in assembling over 6,000 participants -- although
many may only have attended for a day or so. Registration had to be closed (under pressure
from the local fire department) before the event opened because of the unexpected numbers
(nearly double the number expected). The core group of invited 'religious and
spiritual leaders' numbered less than 200, most of whom gave lectures and workshops
to the remainder, although many others were invited to play key roles in such events. Part
of the success in ensuring a broad mix of faiths was due to the role played by the Host
Committees in the Chicago area organized for each faith. These played a key role in
organizing and financing the presence of representatives of religions, notably from Asia.
Use of multiple local host committees proved an unusually successful approach to
organizing international participation. As was noted, North American is now itself home to
a very broad range of non-Christian faiths, many based on spiritual communities. These too
were well-represented. But again, no list of participants or breakdowns were available.

It was fairly clear that the Chicago event attracted very few participants from Europe
or the Latin countries. Buddhists claimed that there was inadequate participation from
Japan. Others noted the Absence of Muslim theologians. Since no interpretation facilities
were provided, nearly all participants necessarily had a reasonable competence in English.
It is unclear, despite the exotic range of costumes, how many participants actually
travelled from outside North America -- beyond those specifically invited or those whose
travel was facilitated from the USA. Nevertheless the range of dress and racial types
created the impression of a meeting much more international than most -- including those
of the United Nations.

Whether the types of people attracted to the event corresponded to those most valuable
in advancing the cause of inter-faith dialogue is another matter -- although of concern to
some participants. The skills and insights of the participants might however be judged
irrelevant to the symbolic significance of the event their presence brought about. Who
expected whom to achieve what?

Programme structure

The programmes of the Catholic initiatives are relatively simple, as was that of Alma
Ata. In the latter case, however, the schedule was merely indicative so that even invited
speakers were unclear, up until the last moment, whether in fact they would speak.
Programming was a last minute exercise subject to the vagaries of last minute politics --
and opportunities -- and personal contact with the organizers.

The programme structure of the Chicago event was exceedingly complex. It was made up of
over 600 separate events, of which 40 might be occurring in parallel at any one time.
Fortunately most events took place within the Palmer House Hotel. The programme schedule
given to each participant was a closely printed softbound book of some 152 pages in
English. Without it, effective participation was virtually impossible. It amounted to a
'street map' through which the three-dimensional space-time maze of the event
could be navigated by those with such skills. The otherwise excellent programme lacked an
index so locating the session in which a given personality would speak required up to an
hour of study. No attempt was made to provide an index by theme. Few last minute
amendments were made, and if made were virtually impossible to communicate to interested
participants.

The 8-day programme was divided into the components indicated in Figure 3. The schedule
ran from sunrise (meditation) to the final plenary each evening, starting at 20.00 and
running through to 22.00 or 23.00.

The Parliament of the People was a lunchtime facilitated session for (up to 300)
participants wanting to take the opportunity to dialogue and articulate their views for
presentation to the Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. It called upon the
services of a team of some 30 facilitators. For several hours a day, these also serviced
four 'spaces' for: elders, women, men, and a hospitality centre.

In addition to the excellent internal messaging system of the hotel, there were two
communication facilities operating during the event:

TogetherNet: a computerized network allowing communication between participants
and others, before, during and subsequent to the event. Participants were invited to
provide personal data for inclusion, and to subscribe to later use of the service.

Your Voice: a participant interaction messaging system based on 50-word messages
supplied by participants whether through 'suggestion boxes' or as part of the
TogetherNet questionnaire. These messages, comments and questions were typed into notebook
computers and printed out as a newsletter of 12 issues. Conclusions of the Parliament of
the People and of the Assembly were also incorporated into the final issues of Your Voice
(9)

Organization

The Parliament was organized by the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions
of which the principal organ is the Board of Trustees, numbering 37 people. Practical
organization was carried out by Council staff -- assisted by a large and well- coordinated
group of volunteers. With few exceptions Trustees are based in the USA, and primarily in
the Chicago area. The Board was assisted by 14 local Host Committees for the following
religious communities: African American, Anglican/Episcopal, Baha'i, Buddhist, Pan
Orthodox, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Native American, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Sikh,
and Zoroastrian.

The donors listed in the programme document ranged from those contributing over
$100,000 (Laurance Rockefeller, John Templeton), over $25,000 (MacArthur Foundation, Betty
Reneker, Steven Rockefeller), to those giving lesser amounts (some 80 bodies and
individuals). All seem to be based in the USA.

The legitimacy of the event had been further established by ensuring
'co-sponsorship' by some 200 religious bodies and organizations, all but 12
based in North America. The World Council of Churches was a notable absentee.

Operations

The event appeared to function very smoothly. Clearly the infrastructure provided by an
experienced convention hotel such as the Palmer House avoided many difficulties. Partly
because of the personalities present, the level of security was quite high. Many security
personnel patrolled the building throughout the event.

As a 'programme driven' event, the main challenges were to ensure that the
responsible people and speakers were in the right rooms at the right time. Other
difficulties such as document distribution and interpretation were avoided because they
were not part of the process.

There was extensive media coverage of the event, especially in North America. A number
of video crews were present to establish video archives. There was little provision for
recording presentations and it is unclear to what extent there will be a written record of
the event. No 'papers' were distributed, with the exception of the Sourcebook
(4).

Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders

This culminating 3-day event in the nearby former Stock Exchange -- a not inappropriate
location, for the discussion of values -- assembled some 200 personalities (including
theologians) with the objective of obtaining their signature of a Global Ethic.
This had been prepared in advance by the Swiss theologian Dr Hans Küng in consultation
with many relevant authorities, including Marcus Braybrooke (Stepping Stones to a
Global Ethic). Küng had laid the groundwork for such a moral world order in a recent
book on Global Responsibility: in search of a new world ethic (London, SCM Press, 1991).
This called for a paradigm shift towards 'a post-confessional and interreligious
humanity' in which the major faiths would celebrate their common ethic while
exploring their own weaknesses. The Global Ethic was described as an alternative
framework for religion to which people would be held accountable.

Participants at the Assembly were carefully grouped into tables of approximately eight
people, each reflecting an inter-faith mix. Each table included a member of the Board of
Trustees as well as one member of the team of facilitators.

Participants at each table were invited to introduce themselves and to dialogue, before
turning their attention to the declaration. Over half the Assembly participants signed the
declaration,headed by the Dalai Lama.

Coherence

There was little effort to provide any sense of coherence or complementarity to the
complex pattern of the event. From this perspective it was a celebration rather than a
real effort to progress constructively towards some objective or product. The main product
sought was the signature of the Global Ethic by the Assembly.

But a remarkable attempt was made to set the context for the event through a 240-page
background document: A Sourcebook for the Community of Religions, prepared for the
Council by Joel Beversluis (4). This could be purchased by participants from the Council
and may well prove to be the most important product of the event.

The document contained a highly informative, readable mix of short contributions from a
wide range of existing and solicited sources. It was organized as indicated in Figure 4.

There is a proposal to develop the hundreds of hours of video and audiotape into a
package of resource materials, if only to match the printed summaries of the 1893 event.

D. ALTERNATIVE REALITIES

There is no question but that the event aroused great enthusiasm, attracted many
highly-motivated people, and was considered a unique experience in which it was a
privilege to participate. The organizers achieved much against considerable odds.

The question raised by the event is not so much what it did achieve as what it did
not achieve. Because of the natural tendency to sustain the momentum of the event
amongst waverers, it becomes difficult to detect challenges through which further learning
and development could take place. Any such challenges can only be seen as detracting
unfruitfully from the acclaimed success of the event at a time when most initiatives tend
to be evaluated in their most positive light to disguise any failure. In a media-oriented
society it is frequently forgotten that it is only from failures that actual learning
occurs -- a reason for the power of science compared to religion. And yet most spiritual
disciplines do claim a creative response to failure and the rooting out of weaknesses.

Where lies the future of inter-faith dialogue following such an event? To pursue this
question, psychotherapeutic practices suggest a need to explore the 'shadow' of
the event to discover less comfortable realities which can challenge any tendency to
complacency. It is one thing to build a positive reality to enhance communication between
those who respond, it is another to understand the realities of others who do not, and who
stay away. They too are part of the future of the dialogue.

The event can be observed through a number of other frames to enable recognition of
possible weaknesses.

'Stockholder' perspective

Financing the event was a major challenge, especially prior to receipt of an
unpredictable level of registration fees. At one stage in the preparations, the organizers
had lost their donated office space and the initiative had to be reorganized with fresh
funding. This creates a situation in which people may be persuaded to 'invest'
as stakeholders in exchange for some privileged 'hold' on the structure of the
event and the nature of their participation in it. What privileges could be offered in an
inter-faith gathering of this kind? They could include membership of the Board of
Trustees, a privileged slot in the programme, facilitated distribution of a particular
message, and personal access to religious celebrities.

Who 'bought' themselves a slice of the programme? It is perhaps
understandable, for example, that a page of the Parliament programme should be dedicated
to announcing the presentation of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, since John
Templeton was one of the principal donors to the Parliament -- but some might query the
intention when the recipient had been imprisoned for his role in the Watergate affair. Or
perhaps it suggests useful interpretations of a Global Ethic through which criminals can
absolve their debt to society. Others might query the place given to the Millenium
Institute in the programme and in their privileged communication to the Assembly. It would
of course be difficult for any organizers to avoid pressures of this kind. The question is
how they affected the quality of the event. Researchers of the future will no doubt
speculate on this in the light of the many clues in the programme document.

'Marketing' perspective

The event had to be 'sold' to target groups to ensure an appropriate level of
participation in the programme. Programme slots can be seen as a commodity for which a
demand can be created. Individuals and groups respond according to their perception of the
opportunity that such slots represent -- for they too may be concerned to market their own
wares, whether a belief system, workshops, publications, or a programme of some kind. Many
religious leaders are continually sensitive to how they are marketing themselves. What
compromises were the organizers forced to make in the balance of the programme in order to
ensure the presence of particular groups? In a sense the whole event may be seen as an
effort by the organizers to market the Global Ethic as effectively as possible.
What effect do such marketing pressures have on the dialogue process?

As the event snowballed in importance, the organizers were as much on the receiving end
of demands for slots as endeavouring to ensure the presence of persons and groups
important to their own mix of objectives. The structure of the programme seems to have
evolved into as a mechanism for making available programme slots (a particular room at a
given time). The Palmer House had many smaller meeting rooms suitable for this purpose. As
a 'market place', the issue of how each such item fitted into the event as a
whole did not have to be raised too strongly. Such sub-events could be, and were,
effectively isolated. Too often they only catered to their own constituency or market.

For many participants, participation could be justified because at $300 registration it
offered a mega-package of lectures and workshops that was cheap compared to similar
residential weekend offerings. Seldom can such a set of personalities and
'gurus' be sampled in one place. As such the event could be seen as breaking new
ground as a 'supermarket' of transformational experiences offered to enlightened
consumers -- or at least to those in search of enlightenment.

'Public relations' perspective: show and celebration

All concerned wanted a good show to affirm the importance of inter-faith dialogue. But
as in many events, strong presentations and performances can obscure the need to address
issues which do not make for good showmanship. How did the organizers compromise on this
front? What got lost in the glare of the floodlights?

When does showmanship become counterproductive? The answer could well be sooner for
other cultures than is generally assumed by North Americans. Sacred gestures for some can
quickly become empty gestures and parlour games for others. Perhaps the old adage should
be modified to: One person's celebration is another person's alienation.

Some non-American participants were so repelled by the superficiality that they
abandoned the event. Others from afar reported being so alienated by the 'window
shopping' attitude evoked that they switched effort to window shopping in down-town
Chicago. How insignificant is the message of such a minority -- especially since others
were ecstatic with the experiences offered?

'Political' perspective

Of major importance in any inter-faith event is the question of inter-faith politics.
The central issue of religious controversy is now whether the main religions are equally
valid as the way to the same God. Thus evangelicals and fundamentalists protest against
inter-faith events as a betrayal of their faith. The organizers were therefore remarkably
successful in ensuring the presence on equal terms of a wide range of religions.

A major drama in organizing the event arose between two factions: those concerned to
restrict it to established religious traditions and those concerned to include all
manifestations of spirituality. The latter apparently triumphed but what was the price of
their success? Did Father Keating, a key figure in the dialogue movement, withdraw for
this reason? The full title of the Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders was clearly
one effort at a compromise. The last minute resignation of the Executive Director of the
organizing group reflected some other major tension which was never disclosed. Is it not
time that such differences were creatively used in conferences as a way of focusing and
integrating contrasting patterns of insights? Differences will not go away until they are
effectively addressed.

Given the traditional attitudes of religions since the Middle Ages, what courage to
withstand pressures for the exclusion of practitioners of witchcraft and those of
neo-pagan persuasion -- even though it led to a walkout by Orthodox Christians. Four
Jewish groups withdrew their sponsorship to protest the presence of Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan. The organizers successfully concealed most dynamics of this kind although
they are arguably at the core of inter-faith dialogue.

Which groups refused to participate, or boycotted the event (such as the Evangelical
Christians)? Which other groups walked out and why? Are some faiths more inclined to
interfaith dialogue than others? Which groups seemed to acquire greater prominence than
might otherwise appear justified (such as the Fellowship of Isis) and why? How is it that
approximately 0.25 percent of Zoroastrians worldwide were in Chicago? Which groups were
only represented in a token manner rather than by some hierarchical head? Which groups
were considered to be inappropriately represented by others? Who perceived whom to be
'charlatans'? Why did the Dalai Lama acquire such political significance?

What was the nature of the relationship with the other inter- faith initiatives? Each
such initiative effectively 'competes' with the others, so their enthusiasm for
each others approach must necessarily be tempered with self-interest. Some even sought
assurances, prior to participating, that they would not be put out of business.

It is naive to expect inter-faith dialogue to evolve if power relationships are
ignored. There is much learning to be gained from such relationships. They mark real
challenges. The organizers seem to have felt that the coherence of the event, as a
'good show', was so fragile that participants could not be exposed to such
realities. And yet who exactly is fooled by such cover-ups when some were reported daily
in the press and others are a matter of rumour and hearsay? Should not such issues be
integrated into the process? For it is they which determine who meets with whom in the
future, and under what conditions.

'UN imitation' perspective

The opening plenary was the occasion of an impressively impassioned speech by Robert
Muller, Chancellor of the University of Peace (Costa Rica) and former Assistant
Secretary-General of the United Nations. Muller made a strong argument for a spiritual
equivalent to the United Nations -- a United Nations of Religions. He argued that the
Chicago event was a precursor.

Muller is naturally enthusiastic about the achievements of the United Nations and
reluctant to see that there is anything to be learnt from its failures -- or those of its
member states. But in using the United Nations as a model, care must be taken that
deficient patterns are not simply transferred from one realm to another.

The main religions can indeed be seen like member states of a spiritual United Nations.
Was the Assembly a precursor of its General Assembly -- with the Global Ethic as
the preamble to its Charter? But the more limited number of 'principal'
religions can also be seen as protecting their interests, purportedly through defending
those of the whole, by giving themselves the privileges of membership of a spiritual
Security Council. Was it these whose behind-the-scenes actions most heavily influenced the
structure of the event?

And then there are the 'others', corresponding to the NGOs and peoples
organizations of the UN model -- for whom the UN claims to act. These are the spiritually
oriented groups and communities which do not form part of the traditionally established
pattern of religions. In Chicago these were the 'co-sponsors' and organizers of
a huge array of seminars, workshops and presentations. As with the United Nations, they
met in a location carefully separated from the Assembly. As with the United Nations
Conferences (Earth Summit in Rio, etc) they too were under pressure to have their Global
Forum in the form of the Parliament of the People. And they too were encouraged to devote
their efforts to communicate their insights to a distant Assembly with other priorities.
The weaknesses and abuses of such processes are too well-known in the UN context. Does the
UN ever take serious account of the insights from such parallel forums? Should this model
really be followed enthusiastically?

'Social' perspective

How was it to be an ordinary participant at the event, or even a 'mid-level'
presenter? What was the impact of a major convention hotel environment on the interactions
between people?

As an exercise in creative chaos, the event was experienced as confusing by many. The
programme was such that people were constantly moving between rooms and floors to catch
particular events. Elevator delays proved a major irritant. Frequent use was made of the
emergency stairwells. For some it felt like cattle being herded, filtered and sorted
through a stockyard (Chicago was once renowned for its stockyards!). It was difficult to
find any environment in which to establish contact with other participants -- despite the
huge badges that each wore like a prize steer (some even had an attached array of
ribbons!). Is name and origin a sufficient condition to evoke meaningful dialogue? And is
the elevator the best context to initiate it? Several participants even reported on the
comparative merits of the toilet in this respect, recalling the old quip: 'If you can
Pee together then you can Be together'.

As the correspondent of Hindusism Today put it, despite the remarkable selection
of events: '...some how the hallways proved the real meeting ground. Miles of
ornate hallway along which seekers cruised -- greeting, meeting, gawking, photographing,
exchanging addresses. It all, at least the important part, seemed to happen in the halls:
TV camera crews, radio interviews, promotion of ideas, sharing of experiences, encounters
with old friends. Around any corner or waiting for the elevator you could meet spiritual
leaders from any of 40 major faiths and 200 sects and paths. There were healers, prophets,
avatars, gurus and visionaries.' (5)

Arguably the environment could be perceived as totally alienating to those of certain
cultural or spiritual sensitivities. In that sense the event was for those of thicker
skin, or for those who could organize their participation from their hotel room or suite
-- which many of other cultures chose to do. One alternative was the Parliament of the
People in which dialogue was facilitated. This meant that some 300 people (5 percent of
registrants) in groups of 10 to 20 were asked to address particular issues and to discuss
their response to them. These structured dialogues did not allow people to form any
relationships outside the externally imposed framework. Such dialogues were product
oriented rather than process oriented.

How many left the event without having benefitted from contact with others there with
whom they could have interacted meaningfully in the furtherance of inter-faith dialogue?
At what level does such wastage become unacceptable, given the resources allocated to the
event and the expectations of the many unable to attend?

But one participant argued: 'My opinion is that the Parliament fulfilled its
historic promise. I applaud the triumph that I strongly feel it was. The scale made it a
truly people's event, open to all. If you are a church of one, you were allowed to come. I
enjoyed the weirdness of it. I mean, it was really weird. There were just all kinds of
people here. There was an immense psychic energy because of the openness of the event.
There were so many charismatic leaders there. I have really never experienced anything
like it. That was very important to see and to experience.'

'Communication' perspective

Potentially the event offered tremendous opportunities for communication, networking
and dialogue. But in fact the organizers seem to have been deeply concerned to exert
maximum control over this process. In effect only 'authorized' people were
allowed to communicate 'at' other participants. The communication in the open
sessions was all one way. Apparently there was considerable fear of potential disruption
if participants were allowed to question or challenge the approved speakers -- many of
whom were figures of spiritual authority. Worse still was apparently the prospect that
participants might actually address each other during a session -- bypassing the podium.
Religions suffer deeply from the teaching paradigm which demeans all but the teachers -- a
view that is not acceptable to many others with a deep spiritual commitment. Does the
spirit of dialogue not suggest that we all have the capacity to learn from each other?

The structured opportunity for dialogue within the Parliament of the People was only
squeezed into the programme at the last minute against strong resistance -- and scheduled
at a time when weary participants would be anxious to take a break for lunch. Was this
really necessary?

Opposition by the organizers to communication between participants was most evident in
the strictly implemented policy preventing participants from distributing any materials of
their own. This did not prevent people from trying. But all such handout materials were
frequently cleared off available surfaces by the hotel housecleaning staff on explicit
instructions from the Board of Trustees. This is totally contrary to the tendency in most
North American conventions which encourage participants to communicate their projects and
wares -- usually on display tables. But in Chicago, even the message board envisaged for
6,000 people was limited initially to flipchart size. What exactly were the organizers
afraid of? Could this process not be seen as a useful safety valve?

Typical lost opportunities included the inability to make known (and collaborate in)
such inter-faith initiatives as indicated in Figure 5.

As one attempt to improve communication between participants, the messaging newsletter
Your Voice (9) was set up using inputs via suggestion boxes -- as a last minute initiative
by several members of the facilitation team equipped with notebook computers. It was
funded through a handful of spontaneous contributions from participants and a line of
credit from a local photocopy shop). Despite attempts at negotiations with the organizers,
the boxes (with any messages) and the resulting newsletters were also trashed on occasion.
A variety of techniques was developed to bypass these constraints to ensure some level of
distribution. One is reminded of the Soviet attitude to the distribution of samizdat
literature during the most repressive periods. Why should an inter-faith group follow that
route so rigidly? Is there really a case for religious totalitarianism? Or was this part
of a deal to placate one of the reluctant religious groups?

Was there really no formula under which the list of participants could be made
available to facilitate subsequent networking? Copies could have been sold to cover costs
-- or did this detract from the marketability of the mailing list after the event, or from
a 'competitive advantage' in organizing future inter-faith events? People could
have been questioned on registration as to whether they wished their full address to be
available in this way. Was it because the organizers feared to reveal significant absences
or imbalances amongst the origins of those present? Was it up to the organizers to resolve
the classic problem between maximizing the potential for networking and minimizing the
potential for junk mail solicitation?

'Facilitation' perspective

It is in North America that the widest range of meeting facilitation skills have been
developed. Facilitators are however most frequently called upon to work under controlled
conditions, whether in a corporate environment or where participants effectively contract
for a facilitated meeting. It is rare for facilitators to be used in open meetings where
they have no mandate from the floor to impose their favourite process. There is still
strong resistance to the implication that participants might be 'therapeutized'
in some way. Such resistances are especially strong in international and multi-cultural
events -- typical of inter-faith gatherings.

Under these circumstances it was only just prior to the event that the formation of the
30-strong team of professional facilitators was approved. Members volunteered their
services, which were effectively given anonymously (in some cases on a round-the-clock
basis). Its focus was initially limited to the Parliament of the People (itself a last
minute initiative) and the associated 'lodges'. The emphasis was on providing
low- profile facilitation but nevertheless to focus discussion to provide inputs to the
Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders -- later discovered to be unable to take
account of them. Facilitators were, with very few exceptions, from the USA. Despite their
general lack of experience in multi-cultural, international meetings, they exhibited
considerable confidence in the validity of their approach and their capacity to
'run' dialogue groups.

The Parliament of the People seemed to attract people of primarily Caucasian origin --
perhaps because those of other cultures attach greater importance to lunch or to other
noon-time practices! In this sense the facilitators and participants were well-matched and
both expressed considerable satisfaction at the evolution of the process. This led to the
formulation of participant insights on 'post-its' that were clustered by groups
of facilitators and re-presented to participants on the following day. They were also
typed into issues of Your Voice (9).

The organizers were unsure how to respond to the challenge of how to conduct the
Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. In the week prior to the event the suggestion
was made to use the team of facilitators. Initially this was limited to using one
facilitator per Assembly table of eight -- with instructions to function in a low-key
mode. Their apparent success with the early sessions of the Parliament of the People, and
the stresses in the Assembly resulting from protests at the imposition of the Global
Ethic, then led to the suggestion that aspects of the insight formulation process of
the Parliament be used in the final two days of the Assembly.

The challenge in both contexts was that although the processes were successfully
implemented -- leading to impressive wall displays of clustered insights -- this
achievement could not be built upon. As with all such processes, it captures those
insights which those participants who are prepared to 'play the game' choose to
formulate under those conditions. For those for whom the process is unsatisfactory, the
options available are token responses, avoidance, and ignoring its results. And indeed in
the Assembly, few of the distinguished leaders felt free enough to inspect the resulting
wall displays. And because of the logistical problems imposed on Your Voice (9),
the typed version of the wall charts, included in the final issue, was not available until
the last moments of the Assembly.

Despite its weaknesses, and given the constraints, the facilitation was nevertheless an
unusually impressive exercise for a major event of this kind. What would it have taken to
derive more from the openness of the organizers to a measure of facilitation? What forms
of facilitation need to be evolved for such events? How can the enthusiasm for any
particular process be appropriately constrained, knowing that every process will be seen
as inappropriate to some key constituency in the inter-faith dialogue?

'Guidance and control' perspective

It is clear from the above that control was a major concern for the organizers. The
security challenge was far from negligible - - a point effectively made during the
Assembly by Louis Farrakhan's six large bodyguards. There was obviously great fear that
things would get out of control. It is of course ironic that this perspective should be
paramount in a gathering of spiritually motivated participants. But perhaps this is a
recognition of the conflict exacerbating tendencies of religions despite the peaceful
values to which they all subscribe so enthusiastically. Was there a more appropriate
balance to be struck between control and trust? Must such people of good faith be treated
like children?

There were comments concerning the inaccessibility of the organizers. They were
essentially uncontactable by ordinary participants, creating the impression that they had
set up a defensive fortress around themselves. Perhaps the organizers were truly
overwhelmed by the quantitative success of their enterprise. Perhaps the ordinary
participants were of little significance to them. The organizers certainly gave the
impression of being unwilling to listen.

The focus of the concern for control was most evident in the organization of the
Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. The organizers were rightly concerned to
avoid lengthy posturing exercises by those well-known to have little resistance to this
professional temptation. But, in an amazing piece of symbolism, the leaders were divided
up into small tables with no access to a microphone. These tables were overlooked by an
unusually high podium (a heritage of the stock exchange role of the room) from which the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees ruled the room through the only microphone. Was there
any sensitivity to those spiritual traditions in which none should be positioned
physically higher than their spiritual leader? There was a member of the Board of Trustees
at each table, symbolizing for some the role of the political commissar in the past.
Hopefully the presence of a facilitator symbolized a more fruitful function for the
future.

The first day of the Assembly was highly structured into short time frames each with a
specific objective. It is somewhat disconcerting to see Zen Masters and others required to
discuss an imposed topic for a specific number of minutes before being moved on (because
of 'time pressure') to the next phase towards the achievement of the organizers'
objective in seeking signature of the Global Ethic. Given the location, perhaps
there was some metaphoric confusion between the processes of the stock exchange and those
of the stockyards! How could the organizers have led themselves to believe that people of
such authority would allow themselves to be 'steered' and 'herded' in
this way? And why would they want it to be so? What antiquated understandings of consensus
and order were governing their efforts?

Is covering up fundamental differences and highlighting superficial consensus all that
our collective knowledge and spiritual insight have to offer as a strategy? Neglect of
such questions led to a degradation of the Assembly process on its final day when the
pressure to sign the Global Ethic was brought to a focus. Different factions
refused to be manoeuvred, and endeavoured to make lengthy speeches. Amazingly, there were
shouting matches and key figures walked out. The organizer's, endeavouring to conduct the
performance of a pre-scripted piece of music, were faced with an orchestra that had
abandoned the score. Members were playing their own tunes -- irrespective of the resulting
sense of discord. Enlightenment was less than evident for such a spiritual assembly.

The Chicago event terminated with a 'Concert for the 21st Century' in a
neighbouring park where some 20,000 people assembled. Aside from the music, this included
speeches by the Dalai Lama and other figures. But seemingly the organizers had by this
time given up their efforts at control, for over a third of the people clustered on the
stage were not intended to be there -- thus diminishing the significance of the experience
for others.

Spiritual perspective

In the complexities of the event, the spiritual dimension could easily be forgotten.
Each presentation was very much just that - - a presentation. And there were many
presentations. How was the spiritual dimension nurtured by the event?

One of the significant achievements was the nomination of a core group of the 25 most
influential spiritual leaders which met privately for a period over several days. This may
prove to be the basis for an ongoing structure or annual event.

In one sense the event was very much an exercise in 'fullness' - - a full
experience par excellence. But what of the sense of 'emptiness' which is so
important in many traditions? Even the daily meditations obscured this dimension. As part
of the marketing exercise, different groups acquired the right to market their own brand
of meditation -- often at the price of alienating others to whom the spiritual dimension
was also important. A high price was paid by favouring 'brand-name' meditations
over those which encouraged inter-faith participation.

All 'moments of silence' were preceded by lengthy verbal introductions --
even in the Assembly of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. Some periods of
'silence' were even provided with a musical accompaniment. If collective silence
is to be so feared then maybe more can be learnt from it. It had originally been hoped
that many contemplatives would be present to shift the tone of the event. Why was this not
possible?

'Hidden' perspectives

Many of those present would attach considerable significance to the event in terms of
esoteric or other frameworks. As a confluence of spiritual energies there have been few
events with which to compare it. Many prayed for its success, even in distant spiritual
communities. Perhaps to ask how such a gathering of energy was 'used' is indeed
inappropriate. But perhaps failing to guard against 'abuse' leaves the gathering
to subtle forms of manipulation by those more skilled in such processes. Maybe there was a
case for more 'psychic security' and less physical security!

Nevertheless there seems to have been a significant gap between those who saw the event
as 'symbolically' important, as a sign of new beginnings in the search for
peace, and those who might have sought to go further to ensure a more effective patterning
of the assembled energies in the light of such insights. Of course for some, their deepest
insights would attribute perfection to the event as it was -- even apparent defects
contributing to the harmony of that perfection. For others this view amounts in part to an
irritating form of complacency.

As one journalist put it: 'many Parliament participants dream of more than
breaking bread with one another.' One reason given for the event by the organizers
was indeed 'to create for our time a new conversation.' Nowhere is the nature of
that conversation envisaged. From this perspective the participants could be described as
having been over-blessed, over-inspired and under- worked by the process of the
Parliament.

Part II of this paper explores some insights
arising from the challenges and questions highlighted by the Chicago Parliament.